03/05/2018 Meta Model

Home
NLP Training Courses
Main Menu
Course Schedule & Booking
Seven Day NLP Practitioner Training
Four Day NLP Practitioner Training
NLP Master Practitioner Training
NLP Trainers Training
Time Based Techniques
Business NLP Training
Clinical Hypnotherapy
Hypnosis Training
Online NLP Training
Main Menu
All About Our Online NLP Practitioner Training
All About Our Online NLP Master Practitioner Training
All About Our Presentation Skills Course
All About Our Clinical Hypnotherapy Course
All About Our Time Based Techniques Course
Click Here for Online Practitioner Series (PDF Workbooks)
Members
Main Menu
Please Login or Register
My Account
My Online Courses
NLP Resources
Main Menu
All Resources
NLP Accreditation Bodies
Training Videos
Articles & Blog
Audio Guides
Glossary
NLP World Shop
Main Menu
Browse All Items
Hypnosis MP3s
Business NLP MP3s
Self Development Books
NLP & Hypnosis Bundles
TBT & Hypnosis Series
Trainers Resources
Shopping Cart
Checkout
Custom Payment
Contact

+44 (0) 844 057 0392

https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ 1/7
03/05/2018 Meta Model

NLP Training – Meta Model

Written by

The meta-model in NLP or neuro-linguistic programming (or meta-model of therapy) is a set of questions designed to
specify information, challenge and expand the limits to a person’s model of the world.

Read more about NLP Training – Meta Model

It responds to the distortions, generalizations, and deletions in the speaker’s language. The meta model forms the
basis of Neuro-linguistic programming as developed by then assistant professor of linguistics, John Grinder and
Richard Bandler. Grinder and Bandler “explained how people create faulty mental maps of reality, failing to test their
linguistic / cognitive models against the experience of their senses.”

The meta model draws on transformational grammar and general semantics, the idea that language is a translation of
mental states into words, and that in this translation, there is an unconscious process of deletion (not everything
thought is said), distortion (assumptions and structural inaccuracies) and generalization (a shift towards absolute
statements). Likewise in hearing, not everything said is acknowledged as heard.

These language patterns were based on the work of family therapist Virginia Satir, gestalt therapist Fritz Perls and
linguistic patterns from Transformational syntax. It is claimed that the Meta-model “yields a fuller representation of
the client’s model of the world – the linguistic Deep Structure from which the client’s initial verbal expressions or
Surface Structure, were derived” by offering challenges to its limits, the distortions, generalizations or deletions in
the speaker’s language.The reverse set of the meta-model is the Milton-model; a collection of artfully vague language
patterns elicited from the work of Milton Erickson.

The following examples were derived from therapeutic contexts. The developers state that these patterns can be
identi ed in all human communication.

De nition of the meta-model:

“People respond to events based on their internal pictures, sounds and feelings. They also collect these experiences
into groups or categories that are labeled with words. The meta-model is a method for helping someone go from the
information-poor word maps back to the speci c sensory-based experiences they are based on. It is here in the
information-rich speci c experiences that useful changes can be made that will result in changes in behavior.”

Following are EXAMPLES of HOW to use your language to recover lost sensory experiences from the speaker:

DISTORTIONS
1. Mind Reading: Claiming to know someone’s internal state. Ex: “You don’t like me.” “How do you know I don’t like
you?” Recovers Source of the Info.

2. Lost Performative: Value judgments where the person doing the judging is left out. Ex. “It’s bad to be inconsistent.”
“Who says it’s bad?” “According to whom?” “How do you know it’s bad.” Gathers evidence. Recovers source of the
belief, the Performative, strategy for the belief.

3. Cause?Effect: Where cause is wrongly put outside the self. Ex: “You make me sad.” “How does what I’m doing cause
you to choose to feel sad?” (Also, Counter Ex., or “How Speci cally?” Recovers the choice.

4. Complex Equivalence: Where two experiences are interpreted as being synonymous. Ex: “She’s always shouting at
me, she doesn’t like me.” “How does her yelling mean that she..?” “Have you ever shouted at someone you liked?”
Recovers Complex Equivalence. Counter Example.

5. Presuppositions: Ex: “If my husband knew how much I suffered, he wouldn’t do that.”
There are 3 Presuppositions in this sentence: (1) I suffer, (2) My husband acts in some way, and (3) My husband
doesn’t know I suffer. (1) “How do you choose to suffer?” (2) “How is he (re)acting? (3) “How do you know he doesn’t
know?” Specify the choice & the verb, & what he does.
Recover the Internal Rep., and the Complex Equivalence

GENERALIZATIONS

6. Universal Quanti ers: Universal Generalizations such as all, every, never, everyone, no one, etc. Ex: “She never
listens to me.” Find Counter Examples. “Never?” “What would happen if she did?” Recovers Counter Examples,
https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ 2/7
03/05/2018 Meta Model

Effects, Outcomes.

7. Modal Operators: a. Modal Operators of Necessity: As in should, shouldn’t, must, must not, have to, need to it is
necessary. Ex: “I have to take care of her.”
b. Modal Operators of Possibility: (Or Impossibility.) As in can/can’t, will/won’t, may/may not, possible/impossible. Ex:
“I can’t tell him the truth.” a. “What would happen if you did?” (“What would happen if you didn’t?” Also, “Or?”

b. “What prevents you?” (“What would happen if you did?”)

Recovers Effects, Outcome.

Recovers Causes

DELETIONS

8. Nominalizations: Process words which have been frozen in time, making them nouns. Ex: “There is no
communication here.” “Who’s not communicating what to whom?” “How would you like to communicate?” Turns it
back into a process, recovers deletion, and Ref. Index.

9. Unspeci ed Verbs: Ex: “He rejected me.” “How, speci cally?” Speci es the verb.

10. Simple Deletions: a. Simple Deletions: Ex: “I am uncomfortable.”

b. Lack of Referential Index: Fails to specify a person or thing. Ex: “They don’t listen to me.”

c. Comparative Deletions: As in good, better, best, worst, more, less, most, least.

Ex: “She’s a better person.” a. “About what/whom?” b. “Who, speci cally, doesn’t listen to you?”
c. “Better than whom?” “Better at what?” “Compared to whom, what? Recovers Deletion.

Recovers Ref. Index.

Recovers Comparative Deletion.

OK, the following is a take on the Meta Model from another source: You can read this to allow yourself to think more
about language or just stick with the above for clarity!

Distortions

Presupposition

Presupposition, refers to an assumption whereby the truth is taken for granted.

Crucially, negation of an expression does not change its presuppositions: I want to do it again and I don’t want to do it
again both mean that the subject has done it already one or more times; My wife is pregnant and My wife is not
pregnant both mean that the subject has a wife. In this respect, presupposition is distinguished from entailment and
implication. For example, The president was assassinated entails that The president is dead, but if the expression is
negated, the entailment is not necessarily true.

Example 1:

* “My wife is pregnant.”

* Presupposition: You have a wife.

Example 2:

* “Do you want to do it again?”

* Presupposition: I have done it already, at least once.
* Challenge: “how do you know I already did it?”

Example 3:

* “My husband is as lazy as my son.”

* Presuppositions: You have a husband; you have a son; you believe son is lazy.
* Challenge: “Am I to assume that you believe your husband and son are lazy?”

Cause-Effect

Cause-effect, the inappropriate use of causal thinking (x means y, x makes me y, or x makes y happen)
https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ 3/7
03/05/2018 Meta Model

Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example,
deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or
at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases.

Example 1:

* “That news makes me angry.”

* Presupposition: He/she is angry
* Challenge: “If it weren’t for that news, you would not be angry?”
* Challenge: “How does that news cause you to choose to be angry?”

Example 2: (complex equivalence)

* “Being late means she does not love me.”

* Challenge: “How do you know?”

Mind Read

Mind-reading violation occurs when someone claims to think they know what another is thinking without
veri cation.

Example:

* “If he doesn’t start paying his share of the bills, she is going to leave him.”
* Challenge: “How do you know this? Has she told you that she intends to leave him if he doesn’t?”

Nominalisation

Nominalisation occurs when a verb is transformed into a noun. A dynamic process (i.e. a verb) is transformed into
something static (i.e. a noun). It’s like taking a snapshot of a moving object, you don’t see the movement any more, just
the (static) object.

In English, some verbs and adjectives can be used directly as nouns, for example, change and good. Others require a
suf x:

* applicability (from applicable)

* carelessness (from careless)
* dif culty (from dif cult)
* failure (from fail)
* intensity (from intense)
* investigation (from investigate)
* movement (from move)
* reaction (from react)
* refusal (from refuse)
* swimming (from swim)
* nominalisation (from nominalise)

Examples:

* “The communication [from ‘communicate’] in this company is poor.”

* Challenge: “Who is not communicating with whom?” Or (if you know who) How could we communicate more
effectively?”

* “They need my decision [from ‘decide’] by Monday.”

* Challenge: “What do you need to decide?” (and if you know) “What have you decided?”

Note: there are 2 simple tests that can be used to determine if a word or expression is a nominalisation:

* the wheelbarrow test: if you can put it into a wheelbarrow, it is NOT a nominalisation. E.g. A drink is a noun, but it is
not a nominalisation… as it is tangible, it can be put into a wheelbarrow and carried around. Quality control fails the
wheelbarrow test and is a nominalisation.
* If the word continuous can be put in front of the noun and still make sense. E.g. improvement becomes continuous
improvement, hence improvement is a nominalisation. (The fact that continuous can be added indicates that there is
a dynamic aspect to this static element).

Complex Equivalence
https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ 4/7
03/05/2018 Meta Model

Complex equivalence draws an unrelated conclusion from an event to create a logic that “does not follow”

Example:

* “And now my secretary quit. I’ll be bankrupt by the end of the year!”
* Challenge: “Are you telling me your fortune depended on your secretary’s employment?”

Generalization

* See also: hasty generalization, Glittering generality

Universals

All known human languages make use of quanti ers, even languages without a fully edged number system. For
example, in English:

* Every glass in my recent order was chipped.

* Some of the people standing across the river have white armbands.
* Most of the people I talked to didn’t have a clue who the candidates were.
* Everyone in the waiting room had at least one complaint against Dr. Ballyhoo.
* There was somebody in his class that was able to correctly answer every one of the questions I submitted.
* A lot of people are smart.

Universal quanti ers occurs when someone attempts to characterize an entire set (all people, every X, everyone,
everything, …). This NLP meta model question can be used when someone is generalising too broadly.

Example:

* “My co-workers are all lazy.”

* Challenge: “All of them?” or “Which co-workers, speci cally?”

Modal operators

Modal operators are intuitively characterised by expressing a modal attitude, such as necessity (have to, must,
should) or possibility (can, might, may) towards the proposition which it is applied to. (see also: wishful thinking)

Example:

* “I can’t put myself together.”

* Challenge: “What would happen if you did/didn’t?”

* “I must put myself together.”

* “Challenge: “What would happen if you didn’t?”

Deletion

Simple Deletions

In a simple deletion an important element in a statement is missing. For example:

Go and do it. That is important. I feel bad.

Key words to look out for are it and that.

The appropriate response would be to ask what, where or when exactly? “Go and do what exactly?”

Unspeci ed Verbs

In an unspeci ed verb it is not clear how the action creates or created the result. For example:

I created a great impression on them.

The appropriate response is to ask how exactly does taking “x” action lead to “y” result. “How exactly did you create a
great impression (and note the unspeci ed referential index “them”) on who exactly?”

Comparisons

https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ 5/7
03/05/2018 Meta Model

Unspeci ed Comparatives or null comparative is a comparative in which the starting point for comparison is not
stated. These comparisons are frequently found in advertising. For example, in typical assertions such as “our burgers
have more avor”, “our picture tube is sharper” or “50% more”, there is no mention of what it is they are comparing to.
In some cases it is easy to infer what the missing element in a null comparative is. In other cases the speaker or writer
may have been deliberately vague in this regard, for example “Glasgow’s miles better”. The null comparative

Example:

* “That was the best plan.”

* Challenge: “What were some of the other plans?”

* “Our picture tube is sharper”

* Challenge: “Sharper, compared to what?”

Unspeci ed referential index

Unspeci ed referential index, refers to the use of personal pronoun when the context is unknown, or can not easily
be understood based on the preceding sentences. For example uncontextualised use of they, them, you, …

Example:

* “They say I should go into business, but I don’t know if I have the con dence.”
* Challenge: “Who is it that says you should go into business?” and/or, “What do you mean by con dence?”

* “Yeah, I have tried alcohol before. It makes you say stupid things.”
* Challenge: “Wait, does it make everyone say stupid things?”

* “I hate watching the Tottenham in the playoffs. We always lose and it makes me depressed.”
* Challenge: “By ‘we’, do you mean that you are part of the football team?”

Lost Performative

Lost Performative, makes reference to an action but the person who performed the action is unspeci ed.

Example:

* “Her book was highly acclaimed.”

* Challenge: “Highly acclaimed by whom?” or “How do you know that?”

In uences

John Grinder did his doctoral thesis on Noam Chomsky’s Transformational Grammar.

It can also be traced to the nominalistic tradition of William of Ockham.

An effort unrelated by origin but going in the same direction of improving clarity of communication is the constructed
language Loglan (and its close cousin, Lojban).

See also

* Problem of universals
* Neuro-linguistic programming
* Richard Bandler – co-creator of this meta model
* John Grinder – co-creator of this meta model
* Fritz Perls
* Virginia Satir
* Transformational Grammar
* List of NLP topics
* Modeling (NLP)
* Cognitive distortions

Share this:

More
11

https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ 6/7
03/05/2018 Meta Model

Previous Post

Next Post

Members Area Hypnotherapy Time-Based Techniques Law of Attraction

NLP Training Master Practitioner NLP Life Coaching NLP World Links
Training
NLP World Shop NLP Business Training Meta Medicine
Online Training
Testimonials NLP Videos Presentation Skills
Relationship Training Outtakes
Training Schedule NLP Glossary A-Z
NLP Certi cation NLP World Af liate Login
Standards

NLP World - Terms & Conditions - Privacy Policy

Get this FREE widget

July NLP Practitioner now open. Only £850 for first 8 people (7 booked on now)
Contact us!
Powered by vCita
Contact

https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ 7/7